Legal Mess. Who's to blame?

[chartle]

I'm not the sign company owner but I spoke to him. It didn't sound like he had more than an approved estimate - no disclaimer that said they had the legal right to remove the signage. I think he wrongly assumed it was going to be the same as it had with the big companies...

Going to reply here since I think this gets to the heart of the mater (standard internet expert disclaimer applies ).

Does getting a note from the the franchisor absolve you from any legal issues here? Its kind of like "well this guy hired me me to break this other guy's kneecaps, see I have note that says he really does owe him money".

So whether or not there was just a phone call or a fully filled out work order I don't think it makes a difference.

This is not like repoing a car or a house since these two items of property have special ownership laws already out there. The franchisor owns the IP of the sign but the franchisee paid for and owns the materials it was made from. Is there an enforceable clause in their contract that says any thing with the franchisor's logo on it they own?

Love to hear the outcome.

 

[Ideafarmer]

We own the signs!

However it didn't matter if he paid for them, it's still owned by Chevy/GM because it's their trademark,logo,name. All he could do was cry like a baby over getting rid of them.

ams: I'm not sure how it works with car dealerships (who technically owns the sign), but I can tell you that because a company owns the trademark does not mean that they own all physical property that displays their trademark. In this case, the franchisee has a franchise agreement that states that the franchisor has the right of first refusal to purchase the sign from them if they default. So they acknowledge that they would be obligated to pay for the sign, and if they don't want it the franchisee can sell it to another franchisee who has the right to display it.

Another aggravating factor is that the signs are part of the collateral for an SBA guaranteed loan. So if the bank calls the loan and no longer has the assets to sell off, guess who repays the bank for the money they are out? Yep, us taxpayers.

So technically, we taxpayers get to pay for the signs they destroyed

 

[TammieH]

I would say unless one sees a Court Order, stay clear.

Its just like if you make and install a sign for a customer, then the customer does not pay in agreed terms, you are not allowed to remove the signs.

 

[KevinW]

back to the original post Im going to flip this around to "if it happened to me"

I would make sure there was a papertrail and make sure it was agreed upon by all parties. I would ask for payment up front being that it is the nature of this business. I would go out do the deed and bring signage back to shop and inform the job was done

It is not my job to determine who owns what or who wants what. I am dealing with one company and one company only. IF, for any reason an attorney/law enforcement contacted me I would not deal with them but simply refer them to the company that signed off on me doing the work. I see no reason for the sign co that removed to have to go to court

So when you get served with a subpoena,you just pass it up the line and go about your business? IANAL, but I don't think that's a very good idea...

 

[visual800]

So when you get served with a subpoena,you just pass it up the line and go about your business? IANAL, but I don't think that's a very good idea

your thinking too much about this. dont be so paranoid, signs 101 has you guys not thinking clearly. that would never happen

 

[signbrad]

This has been an interesting thread.

If this thing goes to court, and surely it will if the bank has anything to do with it, a judge will sort it all out.

I hope the local sign guy doesn't get pinched. He seems to have acted in good faith and to have followed accepted industry practices.

Rossmosh makes an interesting point about how interpreting laws is not always black and white. This is true. The different US District Courts, for example, do not always decide the same way in intellectual property cases that are virtually identical. And a District Court is not obligated to decide a case in a certain way just because another District Court set a 'precedent.' And that's at the Federal level, where you would expect a certain amount of consistency.

 

[S'N'S]

Being that we don't know the full facts and what conversations/ contracts/ paperwork was entered into, pretty pointless to comment on this issue.

 

[player]

Being that we don't know the full facts and what conversations/ contracts/ paperwork was entered into, pretty pointless to comment on this issue.

Correct, but since we are not all lawyers then we can go ahead and make rulings on the case. I say if the sign guy has cash, he will not when they are done with him. Plus lawyers fees on both sides added to his bill. Then he can go about suing the guys that gave him the job.

 

[Ideafarmer]

I hope the local sign guy doesn't get pinched. He seems to have acted in good faith and to have followed accepted industry practices.

Interesting conversation. I appreciate all the comments.

From his perspective, the sign shop owner thinks he acted in good faith and followed routine industry practices.

But from the irate franchisee's perspective (and maybe the bank's) - as chartle pointed out - he was a goon who took money from an out-of-state bully to steal and destroy the valuable property of a local businessperson and community member. Legal issues aside, imagine the damage to his business if they get a local news station to run a story on the dispute, and competing sign companies use it to their advantage. Even a company with a great reputation could get branded as the enemy of local business.

The sign guy's very sensitive to criticism (and rightly so). The franchisee left one comment on the sign company's Facebook page saying: "Hey maybe you should check to see who owns the signs before you take them and destroy them" and the owner took his whole FB page offline.

Personally, I think it would be a smart move to apologize and join forces with the franchisee in outrage against whoever hired him. It occurs to me that if local businesses make up your customer base, you better be clearly in the right if you're going to get into a public dispute with a local business. Otherwise, even if you win, you're gonna lose.

 

[Gino]

Interesting conversation. I appreciate all the comments.

From his perspective, the sign shop owner thinks he acted in good faith and followed routine industry practices.

But from the irate franchisee's perspective (and maybe the bank's) - as chartle pointed out - he was a goon who took money from an out-of-state bully to steal and destroy the valuable property of a local businessperson and community member. Legal issues aside, imagine the damage to his business if they get a local news station to run a story on the dispute, and competing sign companies use it to their advantage. Even a company with a great reputation could get branded as the enemy of local business.

The sign guy's very sensitive to criticism (and rightly so). The franchisee left one comment on the sign company's Facebook page saying: "Hey maybe you should check to see who owns the signs before you take them and destroy them" and the owner took his whole FB page offline.

Personally, I think it would be a smart move to apologize and join forces with the franchisee in outrage against whoever hired him. It occurs to me that if local businesses make up your customer base, you better be clearly in the right if you're going to get into a public dispute with a local business. Otherwise, even if you win, you're gonna lose.

No matter what you call it or how you phrase it, this would be admitting outright you were wrong. You'd be totally sunk and solely to blame. You can't be doing something you THINK is alright, find out differently and then take a different appraoch. This is what they mean when they say doing business in a reasonable fashion. How you conduct business is how you will be judged. If the judge, or whomever decides on this matter decides you worked outside of the normal business codes, ethics or legal manner..... you will find out quick enough.

I just don't understand the need to destroy these signs as part of the original request. That alone, would send up a red flag or two. Almost always....as in always, someone wants the stuff back, even if for scrap prices. Nope, someone acted too quickly and in a negligent manner, based on the limited facts we have thus far.

 

[ams]

I'd blame Trump.
Not that he has anything to do with it but we are going to be hearing that a great deal for the next 4 years or so.
Figured I get an early start.

wayne k
guam usa

Tasteless to post. Please keep politics out of this forum.

 

[ams]

ams: I'm not sure how it works with car dealerships (who technically owns the sign), but I can tell you that because a company owns the trademark does not mean that they own all physical property that displays their trademark. In this case, the franchisee has a franchise agreement that states that the franchisor has the right of first refusal to purchase the sign from them if they default. So they acknowledge that they would be obligated to pay for the sign, and if they don't want it the franchisee can sell it to another franchisee who has the right to display it.

Another aggravating factor is that the signs are part of the collateral for an SBA guaranteed loan. So if the bank calls the loan and no longer has the assets to sell off, guess who repays the bank for the money they are out? Yep, us taxpayers.

So technically, we taxpayers get to pay for the signs they destroyed

It's not just the face, the pylon pole covers, shape, design, etc is all trademarked.

 

[GAC05]

Tasteless to post. Please keep politics out of this forum.

Thank you for your on the spot correction.
I know ownership has changed here but I always thought it was Amin's job to admonish users for inappropriate posts.
For the new year I will try to check my attempts at humor at the door before I log in to the forum.

wayne k
guam usa

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

My senses are always heightened when I get calls to remove signage. Usually we require FULL payment upfront. Anytime I'm contacted by a national company I always talk to the local location first before dispatching. Removing signs without the local owners knowledge... I would not have touched that job at all. I don't like being sneaky about anything, I try to make sure everyone knows what I'm doing when I'm doing it so there are no surprises when I arrive.

 

[dale911]

Wayne, I thought that was hilarious.

Aside from that, I spent 14 years as a police officer and I would not have even taken a report because it's a civil matter. If the reporting party demanded one, I would have written the report and stat that I told them it was a civil matter and to speak with their attorney. Any Franchise that uses Good attorneys has clauses in their agreements about rights to any property using their trademarks. I have a friend that has 3 Buffalo Wild Wings franchises and no matter the cost to him, every few years they require a remodel and he has to fork the money over to do it. Doesn't matter if he can afford it or not. The agreements are usually pretty strict and very inflexible and can require things like this situation regardless of who paid for it. The law doesn't care who paid for what. This isn't much different that a prenuptial agreement. Doesn't really matter what is fair because it's what was agreed to. I would seriously bet that the franchise agreement contains the true answer to whether there is any real legal issue. Assuming the franchise agreement is written properly, the only problem the removing sign company has is how damaging this may be to his local business through negative press.

 

[Techman]

The problem is..
And i know because Ive been there myself.
The sign can pylon face etc all belong to the bizz owner.
The artwork belongs to the franchise company.
When sent out to destroy the Identification that means to maximum take the sign face. Minimim to deface/remove the artwork.
Destroying the pilon, can or other hardware is beyond the order.. In most cases.
Case in point...
A cell phone company told a sign company to remove a sign faced logo. They came and left with the sign face and left a huge hole in the multiface pylon. They tried to say they were ordered to remove the face. The order was to remove the identifying marks. They were told the cannot take the substrate without filling the opening.
A few weeks later the entire pylon went out because of water infiltration and a nice thunder storm blew out several other faces. Guess who had to fix it all.???? yes, the local sign company had to repair and replace..